Cirrus pilot pulls chute too late

The private pilot had spent several hours flying practice instrument approaches to various airports. He stated he became distracted and failed to monitor the Cirrus SR22’s fuel state.

His normal habit was to alternate between the airplane’s wing fuel tanks every 30 minutes, however he did not perform this action during the last hour of the flight.

Shortly after takeoff to return to his home airport in night visual meteorological conditions, the airplane’s engine experienced a total loss of power.

The pilot turned back toward the departure airport, but the plane did not have sufficient altitude to complete a power-off glide to the runway. The pilot did not switch the airplane’s fuel selector following the loss of engine power.

About 344′ above ground level, he activated the airplane’s airframe parachute system. The low-altitude activation resulted in an incomplete deployment of the parachute and a nose-down impact with the ground near Watertown, Wisconsin. The pilot sustained serious injuries in the crash.

Post-accident examination revealed that the airplane’s fuel system was intact. The right wing tank, which was selected, contained about 21 ounces of fuel, and the left wing tank contained about 22 gallons. Therefore, the total loss of engine power was consistent with fuel starvation.

Probable cause: The pilot’s improper in-flight fuel management, which resulted in a total loss of engine power due to fuel starvation. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s failure to switch fuel tanks after the engine lost power, and his delayed decision to activate the airframe parachute system, which resulted in his serious injury due to incomplete deployment of the system and the airplane’s improper attitude upon touchdown.

About General Aviation News Staff

Comments

I was taught that the first thing you do when the engine quits is get the nose down and fly the airplane. Only then do you fiddle with it to get it started. And as mentioned above – never try to do a 180 back to the runway. Never ever.

If you establish the proper parameters considering the aircraft’s performance and the pilot’s capabilities, it can be done safely. Of course if you try to do something you have never done before at too low an altitude, it will most likely be fatal. And that did happen to a couple a few years ago at the airport where I am based.

Can you fly the airplane and reach for the fuel selector at the same time? The engine failure drill should be second nature to you, if it’s not you need to practice it till it is. This isn’t something you should have to think about. I’m primed for an engine failure on EVERY TAKEOFF whether I’m flying a single or a twin. You should also know the point on EVERY TAKEOFF where you can make a turn back to the runway and you should know where you’re going if it quits all the time. Do this and it becomes second nature after a while, you won’t have to think about it you’ll just do it when necessary.

I fly an aircraft which has no “both” position on the fuel selector. It’s a true steam-gauge airplane. The only “glass” in the airplane is the Garmin 396 which I mount on the yoke. It goes in the airplane every time I fly. Why? certainly not because I need it to navigate on local proficiency flights. It’s there because it has a very handy 30 minute timer programmed into it. It beeps at me to remind me to switch tanks.

I’m sure in a Cirrus there’s at least one electronic timer that can be set for such utilitarian tasks as acting as a fuel tank reminder. It would seem this would be a good timer to have running all the time.

Fuel management is a critical task, but not nearly as critical as avoiding striking the ground. In practicing approaches, executing the approach properly is always going to take a higher mental priority over managing the basic functionality of the airplane. That’s why we need reminders like beeping timers and (aghast!) checklists to ensure our task-saturated brains don’t skip the most basic actions like switching fuel tanks.

Oh, don’t get me started on pulling the ‘chute at low altitude. Just don’t get me started… 🙂

I agree with everything you say but I’ll add something else. What is the engine failure drill that should be “drilled” into every pilot’s head during training? Engine failure! Mixture rich, carb heat on, switch tanks, boost pump on, prop and throttle full forward. If he’d done that we wouldn’t be having this discussion, he wouldn’t be hurt and the airplane wouldn’t be a wreck. Distracted? Complacent? Confused? Poorly trained?

Clue? Asymmetric lateral trim or control pressure? Hello? Pardon this seemingly poetic departure from the norm but how can a pilot forget to do the one thing that absolutely positively has to be done throughout the time he/she is defying gravity in an airplane which is to constantly and regularly check the fuel remaining because it is the fuel which powers the engine which enables the pilot to defy gravity which allows for the opportunity to make a normal landing. As a matter of fact, it was learned long ago by humans that gravity always wins, always, especially so in aviation.

Paul
I can hazard a guess on your question, he wasn’t flying the airplane, the autopilot was. He was just riding around, single pilot, at night, doing instrument approaches, punching buttons on all the slick glass panel avionics. He wasn’t flying the airplane except below the MDA where the chute would never be of any use to him.

Never claimed to have any evidence of it thus the caveat “ hazard a guess” but you fly one so you’re in a better position than me to guess about how much hand flying he was doing that night. Do you disagree with my supposition or only with the fact that it is a supposition?

The full report said 4 minutes after departing. Depending on the departure course, the runway might even be directly below. The report implies he spent time trying to restart and then turned toward the runway. If the best landing area requires an immediate turn, then the turn becomes the first step after establishing safe glide. But as indicated and implied, the pilot was not exercising proper fuel management, not prepared for an emergency, delayed in turning to the runway, delayed in pulling the chute. He was lucky.

I think “stupid” is a bit harsh. “Careless”? “Complacent”? Maybe even “distracted” or “unprepared” would probably be closer to the mark. In 40 years of aviating I’ve met pilots who are brash, carry a mountain of hubris, are careless or unfamiliar with crucial system information about their aircraft, are complacent, and many who are distracted. I’ve never ever met a “stupid” pilot. History is full of a lot of battles (wars, and businesses) lost because the loser failed to “know their enemy” — with fatal consequences. Calling names and labeling behaviors is unhelpful for the ones who count (you or me) ’cause we KNOW we aren’t “stupid”. We can learn from acts of carelessness, complacency, distraction, etc… but not from simple ‘stupid’. :O

I disagree. “Stupid is as stupid does.” I’ve done stupid things, survived them and learned from the mistakes. I bet you have too. This pilot was all the things you describe, careless, complacent, distracted and unprepared are all synonyms for stupid in that moment. To be stupid in a moment doesn’t mean you’re stupid all the time but we all have to admit to our own stupidity at times.